Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the ~15 second wait, the three possible outcomes, the retry-after-about-10-seconds guidance on 'waiting', remediation guidance on 'failed', and explicitly that it does not modify source code, namespace settings, or received telemetry. It also adds a security constraint about never including an API key in inputs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Six tight sentences, purpose and scope front-loaded, followed by usage, the verification_id branch, the outcome/retry contract, and the safety/security caveats in descending order of importance. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite an output schema existing, the description usefully summarizes the outcome contract (waiting/failed/passed with retry timing) that drives an agent's next action, and covers auth scope, side-effect boundaries, and the API-key constraint. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret results is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so reason, user_intent, namespace_id, and verification_id are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description restates verification_id's omission behavior without adding much beyond 'selects a plan's test calls', which is a marginal gain over the schema text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Checks telemetry received by Flowlines for an MCP server') plus the scoping constraint ('in the authenticated namespace'). The relationship to the onboarding flow is made explicit via the verification_id semantics, so an agent can place it relative to sibling tools like `onboarding` and `get_mcp_overview` without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives two concrete use contexts: 'verify an integration' and 'diagnose missing or invalid telemetry'. It also clarifies the branch condition for verification_id (plan test calls vs. recent calls). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or saying when this is the wrong choice, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.